Calli Arcale said:

Toothpaste manufacturers and the manufacturers of fluoridated mouthwash get direct competition from fluoridation of the water supply. It is *not* in their interests, financially.

One of the things I’ve heard as a conspiracy theory is that toothpaste companies finance and promote fluoride because it makes dental health *worse* and thus sells more of their product.

When you think about it, this really doesn’t make sense. Toothpaste does not compete with fluoridation of water. If you have fluoride in your water, it may increase your resistance to tooth decay, but it does not mean you are absolutely 100% immune to tooth decay. With or without fluoride, brushing teeth and good oral hygiene is absolutely essential to good health. It does not matter if you have fluoride in the water, if you don’t brush well, you’re likely to have cavities.

If anything, one could argue that toothpaste manufacturers benefit from good oral health, because a person with a festering cavity or sore could be less likely to brush because it would irritate it. And of course, if things go far enough then they end up with dentures and the toothpaste manufacturer loses their buisiness – although the denture cleaner manufacturer gains it

nostromo mentions systemic health risks. Has he considered that there are systemic health *benefits* to fluoridaton? Yes! Dental health is about more than just the inconvenience of getting cavities filled or the unsightly appearance of a gap-toothed smile. Poor dental health can kill you. Yes, seriously.

The mouth is the gateway to the body, which makes it extremely prone to infection. Cavities aren’t bad just because they’re ugly and can lead to damage to the tooth itself. They’re bad because they are great places for bacteria to grow and adapt to your body’s natural defenses. They can foster gingivitis, and that’s not just a fancy word used to sell Listerine. If your gums become infected, that infection can very quickly lead to septicemia, because of the very good blood supply in your mouth. A septic infection is life-threatening. Alternately, the bacteria may simply drift in the blood without becoming established there, and lodge somewhere else. From the mouth, the easiest targets would be the heart and the brain. Not good.

I once encountered an individual who essentially went bankrupt due to avoiding dentists. He had advanced periodontal disease, had lost many teeth, and ultimately developed a heart infection which nearly killed him. In the hospital, most of his remaining teeth were extracted to halt further infection, he was fitted with dentures, and he received intravenous antibiotics for days. When he was finally well enough to leave, he was bankrupt — ICU care is not cheap, even if you have insurance and just need to pay a percentage plus deductible (and he did not have insurance).

So tooth decay is no laughing matter. Reducing cavities is about more than avoiding the dentist’s drill. (Think for a moment why it’s even recommended to get a cavity drilled out. It’s gotta be serious if they recommend what amounts to a minor surgical procedure on a routine basis just to keep it from getting worse.)

And before going crazy with the conspiracy theories, think about who really benefits from fluoridation. Dentists recommend it — but where is the money in it? It *costs* them business, because it reduces the number of cavities. Toothpaste manufacturers and the manufacturers of fluoridated mouthwash get direct competition from fluoridation of the water supply. It is *not* in their interests, financially. The ADA doesn’t recommend fluoridation because of kickbacks. They recommend it because their whole purpose in existing is to improve oral health.

Regarding choice: people have to deal with the water supply where they live. It may have too much fluoride, not enough, too much chlorine, bacteria, minerals and so on and on. It’s not like they get to chose exactly the kind of water piped to their homes individually. What about when fluoride is artificially removed? What if it simply is not added? Does this deny them the right to have it in their water?

It is therefore a logical argument that the water authority should do its best to make the water as safe and healthy as they can and try to provide what the majority will benefit most from, because they have to make the decision for the whole society. That’s just the way it is. You can’t formulate the water differently for every home, so you have to try to do the best for all.

        nostromo said:

Regarding the worldwide support, please see this extremely important European court decision http://www.ukcaf.org/european_court_ruling_spells_an_end_to_fluoridatio.html. Essentially, it is an issue of forced medication and freedom of choice.

Okay, once again. It’s not a medication. It’s a naturally occurring ion that is found in many water supplies to begin with and is a micro-nutrient.

Water suppliers also add chlorine and occasionally add compounds to modify the ph of the water if it is considered too acidic and thus could be corrosive to plumbing or cause dental problems. Sometimes water is “softened” with an ion exchange process that leaves behind some sodium and/or potassium ions in the water.

They pull the water out of the ground or out of reservoirs and treat it with fluoride, chlorine, filtration and occasionally alkelines in order to provide safe, healthy, reliable water service, as they are required to do.

You don’t have to consume it. You can drink bottled water or drill your own well or get some kind of unnecessary filtration system.

Look: municipal water supplies are not always perfect. Where I used to live they did a very poor job of removing calcium from the water and thus the water that came into houses was extremely hard and tasted horrible. Most people needed a water softener. Were people outraged that they were being forced to drink this? Not really. It’s the way it is.

With regards to fluoride, this is one of those situations where the benefit is greatest to the lower classes and fought most by the upper classes. Those who complain about fluoride are almost universally rich white yuppies who never drink tap water anyway. The lower classes are the ones who are generally not getting the best dental care and who are most effected by cavities, as they may not have good insurance coverage or go frequently to the dentist. What is great about fluoride is that it improves dental health and reduces cavities in all citizens.

Alright. This comes up all the time with any organization. It’s a strawman. Of course, the ADA has an interest in the dental buisiness. This is something that some have argued over things like the Health Physics Society: They’re connected to the nuclear industry. Of course they are! Health Physicists are not employed by hardware stores or shoe manufacturers. They work with the nuclear, enviornmental and medical sectors.

By this logic the position of any professional organization can be written off.

The WHO, by the way, is fairly independent and does not have all that much interest in dentistry in particular.

There is very solid empirical evidence and case-control that shows that populations who receive fluoride in the water supply have less cavities, stronger tooth enamel, better tooth development and less need for dental care.

One of the first major city water systems to fluoridate water was Brantford, Ontario. Fluoridation of a few major water supplies began in the United States in 1947. It became official US Government policy in 1951. New Zealand, Australia and the UK began fluoridation of a few water supplies in the early 1950’s.

The introduction of fluoride into water supplies across the board corresponds to a reduction in cavities of more than 33% within a few years. Of course, this kind of evidence is not perfect, because it does not have rigorous controls, but there have also been studies which instituted demographic controls and universally found similar benefits.

In some countries fluoride is not added to water but is added to salt or milk instead. Most parts of the world don’t deliver fluoride this way, although it is the preferred method of delivering iodine (in salt)

        nostromo said:

Could you please clarify which of these experts is not an expert?

Regards,
nostromo at thedailyrazor.com

None of them are because they are self-proclaimed. Expertize is not something that comes from education, or position, it is a form recognition that has to come from the majority of one peers. These people hold professional opinions, and that is their right, but they are by no means recognized authorities on the subject.

Furthermore you are engaging in a type of ad hominem argument called Appeal to authority, which is a fallacy of defective induction, where you are arguing that certain statements are correct because they are being made by a someone that you regard as authoritative ipse dixit.

This type of argument almost never moves anyone on these pages. Argue verifiable facts, thats’ the only currency accepted here.

        DV82XL said:

Nether are the people who’s papers you linked to. These are comments that were filed with Heath Canada during public hearings into the matter, they carry no weight at all. It’s a bit of dissemination to suggest they are ‘accepted by Health Canada,’ because if anyone filed a paper claiming fluoridation of water was a plot by Martian spiders to pollute our precious body fluids, it would be duly stamped by the Clerk, (thus accepted) and entered into public comments. In fact if you were to dig around, you might even find something like that there.

K.M. Thiessen, Ph. D. “The author of these comments is a professional in the field of risk analysis, including exposure assessment, toxicity evaluation, and risk assessment. She has recently served on two
subcommittees of the National Research Council’s Committee on Toxicology, including the
NRC’s Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.”

Paul Connett, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University

Carole Clinch, BA, BPHE, Research Coordinator for People for Safe Drinking Water

Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto

Could you please clarify which of these experts is not an expert?

Regards,
nostromo at thedailyrazor.com

Regards,
nostromo

        nostromo said:

I’m not an expert on fluoridation of water…

Nether are the people who’s papers you linked to. These are comments that were filed with Heath Canada during public hearings into the matter, they carry no weight at all. It’s a bit of dissemination to suggest they are ‘accepted by Health Canada,’ because if anyone filed a paper claiming fluoridation of water was a plot by Martian spiders to pollute our precious body fluids, it would be duly stamped by the Clerk, (thus accepted) and entered into public comments. In fact if you were to dig around, you might even find something like that there.